Why Day-One DLC Isn't Just Bad For Gamers, It's Bad For Business

When done properly downloadable content can add a great deal of value to games, but locked on-disc content and day-one DLC can hurt video game brands.

My colleague David Thier has a controversial piece up earlier arguing that more games should come with day-one DLC or on-disc content. These year-later-releases we're seeing out of Bethesda are simply too late in the game's lifespan, he argues. But if they'd come earlier, he would have bought them up in a heartbeat.

I'm not sure this applies to many of the core fans of Elder Scrolls games. After all, we're approaching the December release of the third DLC pack from Bethesda for this game, which means the publisher thinks there's a market remaining to tap into.

I'm not sure how many people are currently playing the game on consoles, but it's still the fifth most-played title on Steam as of right now (behind a couple of newbies like Black Ops 2 as well as perennial favorites, Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2.)

But I understand where David's coming from. As a fan but not a huge fan of Skyrim, he isn't interested in playing the game this long after release and certainly not in buying up more expansions for the already-expansive title. I'm in much the same boat with Skyrim, though I suspect if it were a game I really cared about (like Dark Souls with its year-later DLC) I'd buy it right up.

And this is where David's argument starts to become problematic.

First off, he's speaking from the perspective of a fan but not a core fan of Skyrim.

It's important to note that there are many people who live and breathe the Elder Scrolls games, and who continue to buy each release.

On PC these Skyrim fans tinker with all the mods and buy up the expansions and will continue to do so even if those expansions go on ad infinitum.

The same is true for lots of games and especially those with loyal followings like Mass Effect and Dark Souls and and the big shooters with their outrageous map-packs.

Where the argument becomes even more problematic is David's argument that the on-disc content or day-one DLC is simply a non-issue.

Here's David:

I’m familiar with the arguments against day-one and on-disc DLC – making it takes away from production of the main game, publishers are locking a part of something you should have already bought for $60, and so forth. The problem is that they make no sense. The problem is I don’t care. I don’t care what’s on the little plastic disc I buy at the store, nor do I care when it was made. I don’t care what each developer was doing on any given day of the cycle, I don’t care when the game was finished. The physical disc is not what’s important to me.

What’s important to me is that anything I pay $60 for should be worth $60. That’s it. Most games aren’t worth $60, but that’s an entirely different problem. I’m no videogame producer, and if people in charge of production schedules can find a way to get me a $60 product and a $15 expansion on the same day, great.

If you think that the developer has unfairly locked its content away on the disc, the heart of that problem is that you don’t think that the available product is worth $60. In that case, don’t buy it. Or wait for a sale. That’s how consumer choices work.

So look, I'm a huge fan of DLC---a huge fan of the idea and promise of DLC at least. There are many ways it can be done right, including the Spartan Ops DLC in the recently released Halo 4, the new content in Dark Souls, or the Captain Scarlett DLC for Borderlands 2.

This is designed to keep players playing and build a continued hype around the game. Replay value for the consumer is good for the publisher and developer, especially if they decide to release paid DLC later on.

Or you could go with the Borderlands 2 model and offer new content relatively soon after launch, but make it unique and new and fun enough to justify the cost.

Gearbox released its first major DLC about a month after the game came out, which was pretty perfectly timed for a lot of gamers. More is on the way, too.

Both these models fit David's criteria by releasing new content before the old content grows stale. Both also fit my criteria by releasing new content that wasn't siphoned off from the original game and repackaged as optional content to raise the game's profit margin.

And while I agree that it all boils down to consumer choice, I don't think consumer choice paints the whole picture. We should take into account how these models work (or don't work) for businesses.

I think David is correct that getting DLC out to consumers quickly is important. I think he's also correct that consumers have the choice to not purchase the game or its downloadable content.

But that's only half the picture. Maintaining good public relations for these video game brands is vitally important---more so now than ever before in the video game industry.

With many companies apparently working tirelessly in an effort to convince gamers that they're after one thing and one thing only, and that games and their audience take a backseat to the almighty dollar, it's critical that publishers and developers rethink their DLC policies and begin examining the best DLC models out there.

I'm not saying that everybody should adopt the CDProjekt RED approach to DLC. It's unrealistic to think that free DLC forever will be a sustainable or practical model for every company, and wishful thinking to demand it.

I also agree with David that the most fundamental question is whether a game is worth its sticker price, but I think locked on-disc content in particular devalues a game right off the bat. It's not just a disc you're purchasing---that disc is just a vessel for code---you're purchasing a game. So why is finished content locked away on launch day?

Bottom line, I get where David is coming from here, and I think he's right to urge better-scheduled releases of new content and smarter consumer decision-making.

But any publisher thinking about locking content on disc or releasing it as day-one DLC should think again.

Even if the content was made after the game wrapped and even if the title is worth every last shiny penny, there's still brand reputation to consider. There's still mistrust and doubt in consumers' minds when they see that content available for a little extra on the side.

Maintaining that reputation can cost money in the short-term, but it's an invaluable long-term strategy. A small price to pay, really, for more consumer friendly downloadable content.

Update: Comment Rescue

Commenter C.Byrne makes a very astute point about rewarding new game sales with day-one DLC that I think is very much on target:

On the other hand Day One DLC can help give a developer a good reputation if it is used to reward people for buying a new copy, rather than a second hand copy – and if the DLC really does add more to the game than a couple of guns and armours.

Bioware used to do this very well, DAO had not one but two sets of Day one DLC – Stone Prisoner and Wardens Keep. The former was free DLC for anyone who bought a new copy, the was only free for those who bought the collectors edition.

ME2 followed a similar pattern, in that the Cerberus network provided free DLC to those who’d bought a new copy.

By the time of DA2 the ‘free’ DLC wasn’t worth it, consisting of items of questionable use or interest in the game, and by ME3 the ‘free’ DLC was a total insult.

It isn’t clear why BW changed its practices, the cynical would say it was a desire to squeeze as much money out of people as possible. But I suspect that it *may* have been related to poor DLC sales for the earlier games (DAO especially), which may have given them the opinion that the costs of providing such DLC was not offset by increased DLC sales. Of course this ignores the boost to a developers reputation, which makes it more likely that people will talk about the game in a positive light.

In the case of DAO and ME2 the sales figures show a sharp rise several weeks in, which can only have come from word of mouth sales. However developers seem disinterested in anything but the first two weeks of sales, and then DLC sales, choosing to ignore the advantages of pleasing customers from the start may have on sales over the longer term – providing of course that the base game is fairly decent to start with.

I think they need to start thinking of Day One DLC not as a way to make money, but as a form of PR to improve the games (and developers) reputation. Sure its a risk, but if they are as confident in a game as they pretend to be then this really shouldn’t be such a risk should it?